(a) Cases where a person who runs a medical business in Seoul as his/her main business, is self-contributation of farmland, or is not recognized;

B. Whether the certificate of the location government office is necessary or not with regard to the sale of an orchard

(a) In the case of oversource trading, there must be proof of the location agency.

(a) The eligibility for the purchase of farmland is required to be a person confirmed to have the objective of cutting down farmland at the time of sale or purchase (see Article 2, 76 of the same Act, and Article 76 of the same Act);

(c)The expression of intent to cancel the contract by means of the repayment by the recipient of the down payment shall have the effect of cancelling the contract in addition to the offer of performance of the double amount;

Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 6(1) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Young-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na618 delivered on March 18, 1966

The part of the original judgment against the Defendant under paragraph (2) shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

상고소송비용중 원고의 상고에 의하여 생긴 부분은 원고의 부담으로 하고, 피고의 상고소송비용중 피고에 대한 상고기긱된 부분에 관하여 생긴 부분은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

According to Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, a person eligible to purchase farmland needs to be confirmed to be for the purpose of self-defluence of farmland at the time of sale and purchase (referring to the case of 4291Guro280, April 21, 1960). Under the same view, the court below held that, under the premise that, at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the new land, at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land, it is not recognized that there is a purpose of cultivating farmland on the part of the farmland for which the court below dismissed the Plaintiff’s request, on the premise that there is no purpose of cultivating farmland on the part of the farmland for which the lower court decided that the purchase and sale of farmland for the purpose of the farmland for which the Plaintiff’s request was made can not be legally effective even if there was a certificate of farmland purchase and sale by the government office at which the Plaintiff’s request was located, and there is no error in the lower court’

The judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney;

As argued by the defendant by the court below, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the evidence pointed out in the argument that the contract for the sale of the real estate in this case was made by the third party's deception, and that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the evidence set forth in the argument that the contract for the sale of the real estate in this case was made by the third party's deception

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

It is reasonable that the court below rejected the defendant's claim for the cancellation of contract on the ground that there is no evidence as to the provision of the contract deposit which reserved the right to rescission in the real estate sale contract for the defendant's original real estate sales contract, and since the expression of contract rescission by the recipient of the contract deposit and the repayment of the contract deposit under Article 565 of the Civil Code is not sufficient to simply express the intention of contract rescission and the source that the contract termination becomes effective only when the repayment of the contract deposit is provided, and the contract termination becomes effective from the previous point of view, the judgment of the court below is just and there

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Since the farmland and other farmland are not recognized as farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act with respect to each real estate in this case, and since the part of forest and field and the part of farmland reclaimed as farmland after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act are recognized as facts as stated in the original judgment by legitimate evidence, there is no objection to criticism of the lower court’s legitimate choice of evidence preparation, at the same time, at the same time, by legitimate evidence.

However, the court below accepted the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that all the land set up in Paragraph 2 of the original judgment in this case is less than 10 years old and less than 10 years old and that the part which is the main source is not subject to the Farmland Reform Act with regard to the procedure for authorization. In light of Article 2, Article 6 (1) 2 and Article 6 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, since the sale of the main source is effective with the authorization of the government office where the land is located, the court below interpreted that the sale of the main source is valid with the authorization of the government office where the land is located (referring to this case as 63Da887 delivered on May 19, 1964). Thus, it is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the purport of the Farmland Reform Act, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the land set up in the order No. 2 of the original judgment cannot be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the original court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court